The second opinion holds that they are only required to make up the fast, with no feeding due; this is the contrary of the first view, and it is the position of Abū Ḥanīfah, his school, and Abū Thawr.

The third opinion states that they must both make up the fast and feed the poor; this is the view of al-Shāfiʿī.

The fourth opinion maintains that the pregnant woman must make up the fast but need not feed, whereas the nursing mother must both make up the fast and feed.

The reason for their disagreement lies in the uncertainty over whether these two women more closely resemble someone for whom fasting is exhausting or a sick person. Whoever likened them to the sick ruled that only making up the fast is required. Whoever likened them to those burdened by fasting ruled that feeding alone is required, citing the recitation: “But for those who are able to fast with hardship, there is a ransom: feeding a poor person” (al-Baqarah 2:184).

As for the jurist who combined the two obligations, it would seem he perceived in each woman a likeness to both categories, and therefore said: they must make up the fast because of their similarity to the sick, and they must pay the fidyah because of their similarity to those for whom fasting is strenuous. Perhaps he also compared them to a healthy person who intentionally breaks the fast, but this is weak, for a healthy person is not permitted to break the fast at all.

Those who distinguished between the pregnant and the nursing woman attached the pregnant woman to the ruling of the sick, while leaving the nursing mother under a composite ruling that blends the sick person’s ruling with that of one overburdened by fasting, or else likened her to the healthy individual.

In my view, the scholar who assigns a single ruling to both women is closer to what is correct—God knows best—than the one who combines two rulings, and the one who obliges only making up the fast is stronger than the one who obliges feeding alone, because that particular reading is not mass-transmitted. Reflect on this, for it is clear.

As for the elderly man and woman who are unable to fast, consensus holds that they may break the fast. They disagree, however, over what is incumbent upon them afterward.

Some scholars say they must feed the poor; this is the position of al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah. Others say that feeding is not obligatory, a view reported from Mālik, although he considered it recommended.

Most of those who require feeding stipulate one mudd of food per day; others say that if he scatters a few handfuls of grain—as Anas used to do—that suffices.

The root of their disagreement is their divergence over the variant recitation we have mentioned—that is, the reading: “And upon those who are able to fast” (al-Baqarah 2:184). Those who deem it obligatory to act upon a reading that is not written in the codified muṣḥaf, when it is transmitted by trustworthy solitary narrators, say that the ruling applies to the elderly. Those who do not make action obligatory by such a reading treat the elderly like the chronically ill whose illness persists until death.

These, then, are the rulings concerning the group of people for whom breaking the fast is permissible—that is, their well-known rulings, most of which are explicitly stated in the revealed texts or are connected to such explicit statements regarding those for whom breaking the fast is allowed.

[The Rulings Pertaining to Those Permitted to Break the Fast When They Do So]

We now turn to examine the rulings pertaining to the category for whom breaking the fast is not permitted, should they nonetheless do so, for the discussion in that regard is directed